Explain Something To Me

[toomuchtime_]

It was supposed to be easy.


Because the Iraqi people yearned to breath free and would be grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam.


We should never try to do this again.

It certainly wasn't easy, but Bush's plan had not been to create a democracy. He had longed believed Saddam had to go and he had apparently believed that Saddam had some wmd's and was trying to develop nukes, but his original plan had been to convene a meeting of the leaders of the various factions and allow them to decide how to move forward. But the factions chose to fight each other rather than to work together and eventually democracy became the only viable alternative to chaos and war. At this point nearly all the factions agreed democracy was the only viable option they had. That's pretty much how democracy came to Europe, also.

Colin Powell had said in reference to Iraq, you break it, you own it. Once the US had committed to the war, it would have been irresponsible to have pulled out without setting Iraq on a firm course to a stable future. Bush, despite all his mistakes, acted responsibly in this respect. Clinton and Obama did not act responsibly in Iraq or Libya or Syria.

I heard a lot of talk well before the invasion about turning Iraq into a showcase for Western Style Democracy as a answer to the message of the Islamic extremists.

If you go back and look it up, you will find most of that talk came from the Clinton administration, especially from Gore, who was quite hawkish on Iraq while Bush was much less hawkish.

Listen to Gore threatening to use military force against Iraq while he was still VP because he saw Saddam's weapons as a "grave threat".



and


"US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.

Meeting a delegation from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he also reiterated the administration's view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

BBC News | AMERICAS | Gore: Saddam must go

It was only after 911 when Bush decided that leaving the mess his father had created in Iraq by allowing the UN to take charge of the sanctions and containment of Saddam, that he decided that for its own protection and the protection of allies in the region, the US must take charge of the situation and make sure Saddam could not further destabilize the region. Even then, he didn't call for the overthrow of he government, just strict enforcement of sanctions and inspections and an end of he corruption that had engulfed those parts of the UN that dealt with Iraq. It was only as Saddam hedged and stalled with the support of France and Germany that Bush finally decided Saddam must go, but even then he had no plans to make Iraq a democracy. What you're complaining about is what the Democrats wanted to do.

Man, and I thought it was bad when liberals play the "It's Bush's fault" card. You're playing the Gore card.

The evidence is you're not thinking at all.

 

[SwimExpert]

The evidence is you're not thinking at all.

I have a doctor's note. What's your excuse?

 

[Correll]

Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth here. First of all, (if you believe Trump), he says he never supported the war, and that the Bush Admin is responsible for destabilizing the area. But, then he goes on to say the way Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq caused ISIS. So, in effect, Trump is really being mealy mouthed and conflicted about who did what to cause this, to begin with. (Being near the 15th anniversary of 9/11/01, I blame BUSH for invading Iraq, it was a ruse to deflect criticism he let Saudi Arabia get away for it's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.)

There is no contradiction between being against invading under Bush, and against the way that Obama pulled the troops out.

 

[BlindBoo]

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

The occupation was the problem. President Bush had to ask the UN for help. It was that very UN that forced the issue in 2007 by not renewing the Occupation Mandate. Forcing the SOFA that spells out the timetable for the US withdrawal. The ultimate topper for the strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

Was the invasion a strategic blunder or just a political blunder? I'm not sure. One could certainly say that the withdrawal of US troops by Obama was a strategic blunder if it hadn't been done for political purposes without regard to the consequences. I would say the strategic blunder was Bush41's when he left Saddam in power and gave the UN more responsibility for maintaining the sanctions and the containment of Iraq than the UN was competent to handle.

It was a strategic blunder in that it created more hostility towards the US. Something that Mr. Trump inflames with his "Take the Oil" Rhetoric. The Agreement to withdraw all our forces was signed and delivered by President Bush. Furthermore President Obama was not opposed to keeping a force in Iraq but the Iraqis themselves wanted us out. Something he proved when Iraq called for help. I thought he might pull a "Ford", but he put on his rescue ranger outfit and galloped to their aid.

Colin Powell and Sec. Rice proclaimed Saddam had not been able to rebuild his conventional army not had he been able to restart his WMD program. I think the UN effort was a success. They fully disarmed Iraq of all the weapons the Western Allies had delivered to him during his war with Iran.

You've got a whole smorgasbord of complaints here so let's take them one at a time.

First, there is no evidence that this "hostility" you believe the war caused did any harm to the US.

Trump made the take the oil statement when talking about ISIS and he is quite right that if ISIS had not been able to secure the revenues from those oil fields for so long it wouldn't have had the financial muscle to spread as far as it did. It is worth notion that much of the US effort in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is to deny it those revenues in order to "starve" it. Logically, Trump's statement makes sense, although it may have been impractical.

Obama has sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement that existed when he withdrew them so it is nonsense to suggest he couldn't have left them there at the time. It is worth noting that when he withdrew them he said that Iraq no longer needed US help not that he was powerless to leave the troops there. Iraq asked Obama to bomb ISIS, not to send US troops back, but by then the Iraqi military had become such a mess after the US left that Obama pressured Iraq to accept our soldiers and turn over to the US a major role in reforming the Iraqi army. It was only after the disaster he had created in Iraq became impossible to ignore that he and Clinton started falsely claiming he had been powerless to leave troops there.

After the war, everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, but before the war, listen to what Al Gore had to say about what a grave threat Saddam's weapons were and issue an implied threat the US would use force if Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections, pretty much what Bush said later.

The hostility to the USA's invasion and occupation shows in the recruitment of ISIS followers in person and on the internet. Yes it has hurt the USA.

The Oil fields ISIS took over and gained financial benefits from were in Syria, not Iraq. When they ISIS, approached Erbil, the oil capital of the Kurds, the West was forced to take action.

Taking their oil was not only a stupid statement considering the logistics involved, but regardless of what you claim the the Iraqi don't want their resources stolen by the USA.

Iraq has given the US soldiers in Iraq immunity again.

US troops in Iraq will get immunity from prosecution, bolstering fight with Isis

Saddam was cooperating with the inspector per UNSCR 1441, which the Bush Administration agreed too and therefore President Bush was in violation of not only the Joint resolution authorizing the use of military force but with the UN resolution as well.

Powell and Rice proclaimed Iraq had no WMD nor had they been able to rebuild their conventional Army in the summer of 2001.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

The occupation was the problem. President Bush had to ask the UN for help. It was that very UN that forced the issue in 2007 by not renewing the Occupation Mandate. Forcing the SOFA that spells out the timetable for the US withdrawal. The ultimate topper for the strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

Was the invasion a strategic blunder or just a political blunder? I'm not sure. One could certainly say that the withdrawal of US troops by Obama was a strategic blunder if it hadn't been done for political purposes without regard to the consequences. I would say the strategic blunder was Bush41's when he left Saddam in power and gave the UN more responsibility for maintaining the sanctions and the containment of Iraq than the UN was competent to handle.

It was a strategic blunder in that it created more hostility towards the US. Something that Mr. Trump inflames with his "Take the Oil" Rhetoric. The Agreement to withdraw all our forces was signed and delivered by President Bush. Furthermore President Obama was not opposed to keeping a force in Iraq but the Iraqis themselves wanted us out. Something he proved when Iraq called for help. I thought he might pull a "Ford", but he put on his rescue ranger outfit and galloped to their aid.

Colin Powell and Sec. Rice proclaimed Saddam had not been able to rebuild his conventional army not had he been able to restart his WMD program. I think the UN effort was a success. They fully disarmed Iraq of all the weapons the Western Allies had delivered to him during his war with Iran.

You've got a whole smorgasbord of complaints here so let's take them one at a time.

First, there is no evidence that this "hostility" you believe the war caused did any harm to the US.

Trump made the take the oil statement when talking about ISIS and he is quite right that if ISIS had not been able to secure the revenues from those oil fields for so long it wouldn't have had the financial muscle to spread as far as it did. It is worth notion that much of the US effort in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is to deny it those revenues in order to "starve" it. Logically, Trump's statement makes sense, although it may have been impractical.

Obama has sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement that existed when he withdrew them so it is nonsense to suggest he couldn't have left them there at the time. It is worth noting that when he withdrew them he said that Iraq no longer needed US help not that he was powerless to leave the troops there. Iraq asked Obama to bomb ISIS, not to send US troops back, but by then the Iraqi military had become such a mess after the US left that Obama pressured Iraq to accept our soldiers and turn over to the US a major role in reforming the Iraqi army. It was only after the disaster he had created in Iraq became impossible to ignore that he and Clinton started falsely claiming he had been powerless to leave troops there.

After the war, everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, but before the war, listen to what Al Gore had to say about what a grave threat Saddam's weapons were and issue an implied threat the US would use force if Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections, pretty much what Bush said later.

The hostility to the USA's invasion and occupation shows in the recruitment of ISIS followers in person and on the internet. Yes it has hurt the USA.

The Oil fields ISIS took over and gained financial benefits from were in Syria, not Iraq. When they ISIS, approached Erbil, the oil capital of the Kurds, the West was forced to take action.

Taking their oil was not only a stupid statement considering the logistics involved, but regardless of what you claim the the Iraqi don't want their resources stolen by the USA.

Iraq has given the US soldiers in Iraq immunity again.

US troops in Iraq will get immunity from prosecution, bolstering fight with Isis

Saddam was cooperating with the inspector per UNSCR 1441, which the Bush Administration agreed too and therefore President Bush was in violation of not only the Joint resolution authorizing the use of military force but with the UN resolution as well.

Powell and Rice proclaimed Iraq had no WMD nor had they been able to rebuild their conventional Army in the summer of 2001.

There was no ISIS until Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon in order not to go into the 2012 elections having broken his promise to withdraw the troops. Iraq still didn't want US soldiers to return but Obama pressured them to accept his terms despite having the same status of forces agreement by threatening not to provide air support if US troops were not allowed to return under his terms. Clearly he could have done the same thing in 2011.

In Iraq ISIL conquered the Ajil and Allas oil fields in northern Iraq during the Mosul campaign in 2014. These areas were later recaptured by the Iraq army.[2] Also, in north of Iraq, Qayyarah oil filed, controls by ISIS and produces 8,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil.[8] Ajil in north of Tikrit and Himiran are important ISIS-controlled oil field in Iraq.[14] ISIL has been able recruit engineers and expert personnel to manage the oil production sites. Oil production is centrally controlled by the top leadership. Until his death in May 2015, Abu Sayyaf had been the "emir" or top official for oil production[2] controlling oil production from 200-plus wells.[11]

Oil production and smuggling in ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama had stayed the course in Iraq and taken the Pentagon's advice and left 30,000 troops in Iraq, there would have been no ISIS, no war in Iraq and the war in Syria would not have grown from a civil war into a regional sectarian war, there would be far, far, fewer casualties and far, far, fewer refugees.

In you video snippet, neither of them said Iraq had no wmd's.

 

[BlindBoo]

The occupation was the problem. President Bush had to ask the UN for help. It was that very UN that forced the issue in 2007 by not renewing the Occupation Mandate. Forcing the SOFA that spells out the timetable for the US withdrawal. The ultimate topper for the strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

Was the invasion a strategic blunder or just a political blunder? I'm not sure. One could certainly say that the withdrawal of US troops by Obama was a strategic blunder if it hadn't been done for political purposes without regard to the consequences. I would say the strategic blunder was Bush41's when he left Saddam in power and gave the UN more responsibility for maintaining the sanctions and the containment of Iraq than the UN was competent to handle.

It was a strategic blunder in that it created more hostility towards the US. Something that Mr. Trump inflames with his "Take the Oil" Rhetoric. The Agreement to withdraw all our forces was signed and delivered by President Bush. Furthermore President Obama was not opposed to keeping a force in Iraq but the Iraqis themselves wanted us out. Something he proved when Iraq called for help. I thought he might pull a "Ford", but he put on his rescue ranger outfit and galloped to their aid.

Colin Powell and Sec. Rice proclaimed Saddam had not been able to rebuild his conventional army not had he been able to restart his WMD program. I think the UN effort was a success. They fully disarmed Iraq of all the weapons the Western Allies had delivered to him during his war with Iran.

You've got a whole smorgasbord of complaints here so let's take them one at a time.

First, there is no evidence that this "hostility" you believe the war caused did any harm to the US.

Trump made the take the oil statement when talking about ISIS and he is quite right that if ISIS had not been able to secure the revenues from those oil fields for so long it wouldn't have had the financial muscle to spread as far as it did. It is worth notion that much of the US effort in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is to deny it those revenues in order to "starve" it. Logically, Trump's statement makes sense, although it may have been impractical.

Obama has sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement that existed when he withdrew them so it is nonsense to suggest he couldn't have left them there at the time. It is worth noting that when he withdrew them he said that Iraq no longer needed US help not that he was powerless to leave the troops there. Iraq asked Obama to bomb ISIS, not to send US troops back, but by then the Iraqi military had become such a mess after the US left that Obama pressured Iraq to accept our soldiers and turn over to the US a major role in reforming the Iraqi army. It was only after the disaster he had created in Iraq became impossible to ignore that he and Clinton started falsely claiming he had been powerless to leave troops there.

After the war, everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, but before the war, listen to what Al Gore had to say about what a grave threat Saddam's weapons were and issue an implied threat the US would use force if Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections, pretty much what Bush said later.

The hostility to the USA's invasion and occupation shows in the recruitment of ISIS followers in person and on the internet. Yes it has hurt the USA.

The Oil fields ISIS took over and gained financial benefits from were in Syria, not Iraq. When they ISIS, approached Erbil, the oil capital of the Kurds, the West was forced to take action.

Taking their oil was not only a stupid statement considering the logistics involved, but regardless of what you claim the the Iraqi don't want their resources stolen by the USA.

Iraq has given the US soldiers in Iraq immunity again.

US troops in Iraq will get immunity from prosecution, bolstering fight with Isis

Saddam was cooperating with the inspector per UNSCR 1441, which the Bush Administration agreed too and therefore President Bush was in violation of not only the Joint resolution authorizing the use of military force but with the UN resolution as well.

Powell and Rice proclaimed Iraq had no WMD nor had they been able to rebuild their conventional Army in the summer of 2001.

There was no ISIS until Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon in order not to go into the 2012 elections having broken his promise to withdraw the troops. Iraq still didn't want US soldiers to return but Obama pressured them to accept his terms despite having the same status of forces agreement by threatening not to provide air support if US troops were not allowed to return under his terms. Clearly he could have done the same thing in 2011.

In Iraq ISIL conquered the Ajil and Allas oil fields in northern Iraq during the Mosul campaign in 2014. These areas were later recaptured by the Iraq army.[2] Also, in north of Iraq, Qayyarah oil filed, controls by ISIS and produces 8,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil.[8] Ajil in north of Tikrit and Himiran are important ISIS-controlled oil field in Iraq.[14] ISIL has been able recruit engineers and expert personnel to manage the oil production sites. Oil production is centrally controlled by the top leadership. Until his death in May 2015, Abu Sayyaf had been the "emir" or top official for oil production[2] controlling oil production from 200-plus wells.[11]

Oil production and smuggling in ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama had stayed the course in Iraq and taken the Pentagon's advice and left 30,000 troops in Iraq, there would have been no ISIS, no war in Iraq and the war in Syria would not have grown from a civil war into a regional sectarian war, there would be far, far, fewer casualties and far, far, fewer refugees.

In you video snippet, neither of them said Iraq had no wmd's.

Iraq was not going to allow US troops immunity. They had a signed agreement with a US president that spelled out the time table for US withdrawal. If fact they could have asked us to leave at any time after 2011. Furthermore we could have left at any time after 2011 too. Why didn't Obama leave as soon as he could?

The claim was that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs and was stockpiling large quantities.

ISIS is losing its so-called state, so it's shifting its message

 

[toomuchtime_]

Was the invasion a strategic blunder or just a political blunder? I'm not sure. One could certainly say that the withdrawal of US troops by Obama was a strategic blunder if it hadn't been done for political purposes without regard to the consequences. I would say the strategic blunder was Bush41's when he left Saddam in power and gave the UN more responsibility for maintaining the sanctions and the containment of Iraq than the UN was competent to handle.

It was a strategic blunder in that it created more hostility towards the US. Something that Mr. Trump inflames with his "Take the Oil" Rhetoric. The Agreement to withdraw all our forces was signed and delivered by President Bush. Furthermore President Obama was not opposed to keeping a force in Iraq but the Iraqis themselves wanted us out. Something he proved when Iraq called for help. I thought he might pull a "Ford", but he put on his rescue ranger outfit and galloped to their aid.

Colin Powell and Sec. Rice proclaimed Saddam had not been able to rebuild his conventional army not had he been able to restart his WMD program. I think the UN effort was a success. They fully disarmed Iraq of all the weapons the Western Allies had delivered to him during his war with Iran.

You've got a whole smorgasbord of complaints here so let's take them one at a time.

First, there is no evidence that this "hostility" you believe the war caused did any harm to the US.

Trump made the take the oil statement when talking about ISIS and he is quite right that if ISIS had not been able to secure the revenues from those oil fields for so long it wouldn't have had the financial muscle to spread as far as it did. It is worth notion that much of the US effort in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is to deny it those revenues in order to "starve" it. Logically, Trump's statement makes sense, although it may have been impractical.

Obama has sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement that existed when he withdrew them so it is nonsense to suggest he couldn't have left them there at the time. It is worth noting that when he withdrew them he said that Iraq no longer needed US help not that he was powerless to leave the troops there. Iraq asked Obama to bomb ISIS, not to send US troops back, but by then the Iraqi military had become such a mess after the US left that Obama pressured Iraq to accept our soldiers and turn over to the US a major role in reforming the Iraqi army. It was only after the disaster he had created in Iraq became impossible to ignore that he and Clinton started falsely claiming he had been powerless to leave troops there.

After the war, everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, but before the war, listen to what Al Gore had to say about what a grave threat Saddam's weapons were and issue an implied threat the US would use force if Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections, pretty much what Bush said later.

The hostility to the USA's invasion and occupation shows in the recruitment of ISIS followers in person and on the internet. Yes it has hurt the USA.

The Oil fields ISIS took over and gained financial benefits from were in Syria, not Iraq. When they ISIS, approached Erbil, the oil capital of the Kurds, the West was forced to take action.

Taking their oil was not only a stupid statement considering the logistics involved, but regardless of what you claim the the Iraqi don't want their resources stolen by the USA.

Iraq has given the US soldiers in Iraq immunity again.

US troops in Iraq will get immunity from prosecution, bolstering fight with Isis

Saddam was cooperating with the inspector per UNSCR 1441, which the Bush Administration agreed too and therefore President Bush was in violation of not only the Joint resolution authorizing the use of military force but with the UN resolution as well.

Powell and Rice proclaimed Iraq had no WMD nor had they been able to rebuild their conventional Army in the summer of 2001.

There was no ISIS until Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon in order not to go into the 2012 elections having broken his promise to withdraw the troops. Iraq still didn't want US soldiers to return but Obama pressured them to accept his terms despite having the same status of forces agreement by threatening not to provide air support if US troops were not allowed to return under his terms. Clearly he could have done the same thing in 2011.

In Iraq ISIL conquered the Ajil and Allas oil fields in northern Iraq during the Mosul campaign in 2014. These areas were later recaptured by the Iraq army.[2] Also, in north of Iraq, Qayyarah oil filed, controls by ISIS and produces 8,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil.[8] Ajil in north of Tikrit and Himiran are important ISIS-controlled oil field in Iraq.[14] ISIL has been able recruit engineers and expert personnel to manage the oil production sites. Oil production is centrally controlled by the top leadership. Until his death in May 2015, Abu Sayyaf had been the "emir" or top official for oil production[2] controlling oil production from 200-plus wells.[11]

Oil production and smuggling in ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama had stayed the course in Iraq and taken the Pentagon's advice and left 30,000 troops in Iraq, there would have been no ISIS, no war in Iraq and the war in Syria would not have grown from a civil war into a regional sectarian war, there would be far, far, fewer casualties and far, far, fewer refugees.

In you video snippet, neither of them said Iraq had no wmd's.

Iraq was not going to allow US troops immunity. They had a signed agreement with a US president that spelled out the time table for US withdrawal. If fact they could have asked us to leave at any time after 2011. Furthermore we could have left at any time after 2011 too. Why didn't Obama leave as soon as he could?

The claim was that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs and was stockpiling large quantities.

ISIS is losing its so-called state, so it's shifting its message

The same status of forces agreement is in effect today that was in effect when Obama withdrew US forces in preparation for his 2012 reelection, so while the current PM says US soldiers will have immunity that is not what Iraqi law says. Obama could have coerced the same concession from Maliki he has now coerced from al-Abadi.

The claim was simply that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program, not that he had stockpiles of nukes. It was, however, widely believed Saddam still had some chemical weapons.

 

[BlindBoo]

It was a strategic blunder in that it created more hostility towards the US. Something that Mr. Trump inflames with his "Take the Oil" Rhetoric. The Agreement to withdraw all our forces was signed and delivered by President Bush. Furthermore President Obama was not opposed to keeping a force in Iraq but the Iraqis themselves wanted us out. Something he proved when Iraq called for help. I thought he might pull a "Ford", but he put on his rescue ranger outfit and galloped to their aid.

Colin Powell and Sec. Rice proclaimed Saddam had not been able to rebuild his conventional army not had he been able to restart his WMD program. I think the UN effort was a success. They fully disarmed Iraq of all the weapons the Western Allies had delivered to him during his war with Iran.

You've got a whole smorgasbord of complaints here so let's take them one at a time.

First, there is no evidence that this "hostility" you believe the war caused did any harm to the US.

Trump made the take the oil statement when talking about ISIS and he is quite right that if ISIS had not been able to secure the revenues from those oil fields for so long it wouldn't have had the financial muscle to spread as far as it did. It is worth notion that much of the US effort in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is to deny it those revenues in order to "starve" it. Logically, Trump's statement makes sense, although it may have been impractical.

Obama has sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement that existed when he withdrew them so it is nonsense to suggest he couldn't have left them there at the time. It is worth noting that when he withdrew them he said that Iraq no longer needed US help not that he was powerless to leave the troops there. Iraq asked Obama to bomb ISIS, not to send US troops back, but by then the Iraqi military had become such a mess after the US left that Obama pressured Iraq to accept our soldiers and turn over to the US a major role in reforming the Iraqi army. It was only after the disaster he had created in Iraq became impossible to ignore that he and Clinton started falsely claiming he had been powerless to leave troops there.

After the war, everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, but before the war, listen to what Al Gore had to say about what a grave threat Saddam's weapons were and issue an implied threat the US would use force if Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections, pretty much what Bush said later.

The hostility to the USA's invasion and occupation shows in the recruitment of ISIS followers in person and on the internet. Yes it has hurt the USA.

The Oil fields ISIS took over and gained financial benefits from were in Syria, not Iraq. When they ISIS, approached Erbil, the oil capital of the Kurds, the West was forced to take action.

Taking their oil was not only a stupid statement considering the logistics involved, but regardless of what you claim the the Iraqi don't want their resources stolen by the USA.

Iraq has given the US soldiers in Iraq immunity again.

US troops in Iraq will get immunity from prosecution, bolstering fight with Isis

Saddam was cooperating with the inspector per UNSCR 1441, which the Bush Administration agreed too and therefore President Bush was in violation of not only the Joint resolution authorizing the use of military force but with the UN resolution as well.

Powell and Rice proclaimed Iraq had no WMD nor had they been able to rebuild their conventional Army in the summer of 2001.

There was no ISIS until Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon in order not to go into the 2012 elections having broken his promise to withdraw the troops. Iraq still didn't want US soldiers to return but Obama pressured them to accept his terms despite having the same status of forces agreement by threatening not to provide air support if US troops were not allowed to return under his terms. Clearly he could have done the same thing in 2011.

In Iraq ISIL conquered the Ajil and Allas oil fields in northern Iraq during the Mosul campaign in 2014. These areas were later recaptured by the Iraq army.[2] Also, in north of Iraq, Qayyarah oil filed, controls by ISIS and produces 8,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil.[8] Ajil in north of Tikrit and Himiran are important ISIS-controlled oil field in Iraq.[14] ISIL has been able recruit engineers and expert personnel to manage the oil production sites. Oil production is centrally controlled by the top leadership. Until his death in May 2015, Abu Sayyaf had been the "emir" or top official for oil production[2] controlling oil production from 200-plus wells.[11]

Oil production and smuggling in ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama had stayed the course in Iraq and taken the Pentagon's advice and left 30,000 troops in Iraq, there would have been no ISIS, no war in Iraq and the war in Syria would not have grown from a civil war into a regional sectarian war, there would be far, far, fewer casualties and far, far, fewer refugees.

In you video snippet, neither of them said Iraq had no wmd's.

Iraq was not going to allow US troops immunity. They had a signed agreement with a US president that spelled out the time table for US withdrawal. If fact they could have asked us to leave at any time after 2011. Furthermore we could have left at any time after 2011 too. Why didn't Obama leave as soon as he could?

The claim was that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs and was stockpiling large quantities.

ISIS is losing its so-called state, so it's shifting its message

The same status of forces agreement is in effect today that was in effect when Obama withdrew US forces in preparation for his 2012 reelection, so while the current PM says US soldiers will have immunity that is not what Iraqi law says. Obama could have coerced the same concession from Maliki he has now coerced from al-Abadi.

The claim was simply that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program, not that he had stockpiles of nukes. It was, however, widely believed Saddam still had some chemical weapons.

Except they were the ones asking for US support. In 2011 they wanted the US out. Now we are defeating ISIS with hardly losing any soldiers, so far.

The claims were that he had reconstituted his chemical and biological programs and was stockpiling them.

Had we not gone the invasion/occupation route, ISIS would never have formed. By 2012 the seeds had already been planted in Syria.

 

[g5000]

Here's old cut-and-run:

 

[g5000]

Before the invasion, Trump in favor of invading Iraq:

 

[g5000]

Before the invasion, Trump was for the invasion. He also said, "I wish the first time it was done correctly." So he clearly was unhappy with Bush I not going all the way.

Five years later, Trump said, "I gained a lot of respect for our current President's father by the fact he had the sense not to go into Iraq."

 

[g5000]

Cut-and-run Democrat Trump 2007 in that last video, "The rest of the world hates us."

"Declare victory, and leave."

"President Bush says he's religious. And yet 400,000 people, the way I count it, have died, and probably millions have been maimed and injured."

"Now they're finding emails, and it's proven to be a lie. Everything's a lie! It's all a big lie."

 

[g5000]

October 15, 2008.

"Hillary's a great friend of mine. Her husband is a great friend of mine. They're fantastic people. You know the thing, they get a bad knock. She's a very nice woman. People think, 'Tough, tough', and I guess she's tough, but she's a very nice woman. And he's a very nice guy. We know all about the smarts, and how smart they are and all, but they are very good people."

 

[toomuchtime_]

You've got a whole smorgasbord of complaints here so let's take them one at a time.

First, there is no evidence that this "hostility" you believe the war caused did any harm to the US.

Trump made the take the oil statement when talking about ISIS and he is quite right that if ISIS had not been able to secure the revenues from those oil fields for so long it wouldn't have had the financial muscle to spread as far as it did. It is worth notion that much of the US effort in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is to deny it those revenues in order to "starve" it. Logically, Trump's statement makes sense, although it may have been impractical.

Obama has sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement that existed when he withdrew them so it is nonsense to suggest he couldn't have left them there at the time. It is worth noting that when he withdrew them he said that Iraq no longer needed US help not that he was powerless to leave the troops there. Iraq asked Obama to bomb ISIS, not to send US troops back, but by then the Iraqi military had become such a mess after the US left that Obama pressured Iraq to accept our soldiers and turn over to the US a major role in reforming the Iraqi army. It was only after the disaster he had created in Iraq became impossible to ignore that he and Clinton started falsely claiming he had been powerless to leave troops there.

After the war, everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, but before the war, listen to what Al Gore had to say about what a grave threat Saddam's weapons were and issue an implied threat the US would use force if Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections, pretty much what Bush said later.

The hostility to the USA's invasion and occupation shows in the recruitment of ISIS followers in person and on the internet. Yes it has hurt the USA.

The Oil fields ISIS took over and gained financial benefits from were in Syria, not Iraq. When they ISIS, approached Erbil, the oil capital of the Kurds, the West was forced to take action.

Taking their oil was not only a stupid statement considering the logistics involved, but regardless of what you claim the the Iraqi don't want their resources stolen by the USA.

Iraq has given the US soldiers in Iraq immunity again.

US troops in Iraq will get immunity from prosecution, bolstering fight with Isis

Saddam was cooperating with the inspector per UNSCR 1441, which the Bush Administration agreed too and therefore President Bush was in violation of not only the Joint resolution authorizing the use of military force but with the UN resolution as well.

Powell and Rice proclaimed Iraq had no WMD nor had they been able to rebuild their conventional Army in the summer of 2001.

There was no ISIS until Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon in order not to go into the 2012 elections having broken his promise to withdraw the troops. Iraq still didn't want US soldiers to return but Obama pressured them to accept his terms despite having the same status of forces agreement by threatening not to provide air support if US troops were not allowed to return under his terms. Clearly he could have done the same thing in 2011.

In Iraq ISIL conquered the Ajil and Allas oil fields in northern Iraq during the Mosul campaign in 2014. These areas were later recaptured by the Iraq army.[2] Also, in north of Iraq, Qayyarah oil filed, controls by ISIS and produces 8,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil.[8] Ajil in north of Tikrit and Himiran are important ISIS-controlled oil field in Iraq.[14] ISIL has been able recruit engineers and expert personnel to manage the oil production sites. Oil production is centrally controlled by the top leadership. Until his death in May 2015, Abu Sayyaf had been the "emir" or top official for oil production[2] controlling oil production from 200-plus wells.[11]

Oil production and smuggling in ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama had stayed the course in Iraq and taken the Pentagon's advice and left 30,000 troops in Iraq, there would have been no ISIS, no war in Iraq and the war in Syria would not have grown from a civil war into a regional sectarian war, there would be far, far, fewer casualties and far, far, fewer refugees.

In you video snippet, neither of them said Iraq had no wmd's.

Iraq was not going to allow US troops immunity. They had a signed agreement with a US president that spelled out the time table for US withdrawal. If fact they could have asked us to leave at any time after 2011. Furthermore we could have left at any time after 2011 too. Why didn't Obama leave as soon as he could?

The claim was that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs and was stockpiling large quantities.

ISIS is losing its so-called state, so it's shifting its message

The same status of forces agreement is in effect today that was in effect when Obama withdrew US forces in preparation for his 2012 reelection, so while the current PM says US soldiers will have immunity that is not what Iraqi law says. Obama could have coerced the same concession from Maliki he has now coerced from al-Abadi.

The claim was simply that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program, not that he had stockpiles of nukes. It was, however, widely believed Saddam still had some chemical weapons.

Except they were the ones asking for US support. In 2011 they wanted the US out. Now we are defeating ISIS with hardly losing any soldiers, so far.

The claims were that he had reconstituted his chemical and biological programs and was stockpiling them.

Had we not gone the invasion/occupation route, ISIS would never have formed. By 2012 the seeds had already been planted in Syria.

The Iraqi government asked the US to provide air support for them when they fought ISIS, not to station US troops in Iraq again, but Obama refused unless they would accept US troops and make some changes in their own military, integrating Sunni and Shia as they were when he had pulled out in 2011. In 2011, Iraq was still dependent on the US to defend it from foreign attacks and the US was supplying Iraq with SAM's and aircraft and other military equipment. Just as Obama was able to pressure Iraq to accept his terms now, he could have used the help Iraq needed from the US in 2011 to pressure them to allow our troops to stay.

The claims were that he was trying to restart his nuclear weapons program and still had some chemical weapons and possibly some biological weapons.